From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1757251AbcATEju (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Tue, 19 Jan 2016 23:39:50 -0500
Received: from mail-ob0-f174.google.com ([209.85.214.174]:35746 "EHLO
	mail-ob0-f174.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S933535AbcATEjo (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Tue, 19 Jan 2016 23:39:44 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <569F06B9.4060903@zytor.com>
References: <1452972124-7380-1-git-send-email-brgerst@gmail.com>
	<20160116193658.GC32085@pd.tnic>
	<CAMzpN2hHVhjJD57wYnRLPZ_58FQGvSEn511ywGhgXzuSAZXD_A@mail.gmail.com>
	<20160117103337.GC8549@pd.tnic>
	<CAMzpN2i+LELbLaBbxDS0MF1Y0sn_Jm3ztCWATzMyrp4rnhWRQA@mail.gmail.com>
	<20160118181457.GG12651@pd.tnic>
	<20160118185107.GI12651@pd.tnic>
	<20160119011026.GA12911@pd.tnic>
	<DD7599E0-BB19-4BEC-B598-B0B29ACF5A36@zytor.com>
	<20160119092213.GA15071@pd.tnic>
	<569F06B9.4060903@zytor.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2016 23:39:43 -0500
Message-ID: <CAMzpN2hz4wUFf6Uc6TFovXmT6F-t8kbc9VQd_E=-p+K-TJaK2A@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: static_cpu_has_safe: discard dynamic check after init
From: Brian Gerst <brgerst@gmail.com>
To: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>
Cc: Borislav Petkov <bp@suse.de>, "the arch/x86 maintainers" <x86@kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>, Denys Vlasenko <dvlasenk@redhat.com>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 11:02 PM, H. Peter Anvin <hpa@zytor.com> wrote:
> On 01/19/16 01:22, Borislav Petkov wrote:
>> On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 05:33:03PM -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>>> Why the f do we call a subroutine for what amounts to a single bt or
>>> test instruction?
>>
>> No real reason. You can kick me when you see me next time:
>>
>> 4a90a99c4f80 ("x86: Add a static_cpu_has_safe variant")
>>
>
> So, here is my suggestion:
>
> 1. Just get rid of static_cpu_has_safe() and make static_cpu_has() safe.
>
> 2. Get rid of the non-asm goto variant and just fall back to dynamic if
> asm goto is unavailable.  It doesn't make any sense, really, if it is
> supposed to be safe, and by now the asm goto-capable gcc is in more wide
> use.  (Originally the gcc 3.x fallback to pure dynamic didn't exist,
> either.)
>
> 3. Put the dynamic test in the .init.text section and inline it:
>
>         .section .init.text,"ax"
>         testb %2,%3
>         jnz %[t_yes]
>         jmp %[t_no]
>         .previous
>
>         ... "i" (1 << (bit & 7)),
>             "m" (((const char *)boot_cpu_data->x86_capability)[bit >> 3]) ...

Can't put it in .init.text or else you get:
WARNING: arch/x86/kernel/built-in.o(.text+0x4b9): Section mismatch in
reference from the function __switch_to() to the (unknown reference)
.init.text:(unknown)
The function __switch_to() references
the (unknown reference) __init (unknown).
This is often because __switch_to lacks a __init
annotation or the annotation of (unknown) is wrong.

We want to override that because we know that the reference will be
removed after alternatives run.  That's why I created a new section.

--
Brian Gerst